the burial of nefertiti?

Transcripción

A M A R N A R O Y A L T O M B S P R O J E C T  VALLE Y O F THE KINGS
Occasional Paper
No. 1
THE BURIAL OF
NEFERTITI?
By
Nicholas Reeves, FSA
THE BURIAL OF
NEFERTITI?
ABSTRACT
Recently published, high-resolution scans of the walls of room J (the Burial Chamber) of Valley of the Kings tomb KV
62 (Tutankhamun) reveal, beneath the plastered surfaces of the painted scenes, distinct linear traces. These are here
mapped, discussed, and tentatively identified as the “ghosts” of two hitherto unrecognized doorways. It is argued that
these doorways give access to: (1) a still unexplored storage chamber on the west of room J, seemingly contemporary
with the stocking of Tutankhamun’s burial; and (2) a pre-Tutankhamun continuation of KV 62 towards the north,
containing the undisturbed burial of the tomb’s original owner – Nefertiti.
“Now, about the tomb of Nefertiti,” [Omm Sety] continued,
sounding a bit hesitant. “I did once ask His Majesty where it was,
and he told me. He said, ‘Why do you want to know?’ I said I
would like to have it excavated, and he said, ‘No, you must not.
We don’t want anything more of this family known.’ But he did
tell me where it was, and I can tell you this much. It’s in the Valley
of the Kings, and it’s quite near to the Tutankhamun tomb. But it’s
in a place where nobody would ever think of looking for it,” she
laughed. “And apparently it is still intact …”
– el Zeini and Dees 2007, 265-266
Frontispiece. The Tomb of Tutankhamun (KV 62): (x) proposed new chamber behind the decorated west wall of the
Burial Chamber (J); (y) potential continuation of the tomb beyond the Burial Chamber’s decorated north wall
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with additions,
copyright © Theban Mapping Project)
A M A R N A R O Y A L T O M B S P R O J E C T  V A L L E Y O F T H E K I N G S
O c cas io n al Pap er
No. 1
THE BURIAL OF
NEFERTITI?
By
2015
A Publication of the Amarna Royal Tombs Project
Copyright © Nicholas Reeves 2015
University of Arizona Egyptian Expedition
1215 E. Lowell Street
Tucson, AZ 85721-0045
[email protected]
This study is dedicated to the memory of Ruth Eldridge, MBE,
who passed away peacefully on April 22, 2015, aged 93, and
whose friendship over the years is here gratefully acknowledged.
Whatever secrets KV 62 may still hold in store, their eventual disclosure
will owe much to her far-sighted interest and generous support.
Amarna Royal Tombs Project, Occasional Paper No. 1 (2015)
THE BURIAL OF NEFERTITI?
Amarna Royal Tombs Project, Valley of the Kings
scenes of the KV 62 Burial Chamber4 (J)5 (captured
1:1 at 600-800 DPI), accompanied by a scanned
record of the surfaces of the walls which carry this
decoration (at a resolution of between 100 and 700
microns)6 (Fig. 1). Both resources boast an impressive
zoom capability, and as a contribution to the on-going
documentation of Tutankhamun’s tomb their
importance cannot be overstated. For Egyptologists
the data provide immediate, desk-based access to the
smallest iconographic detail and brushstroke of the KV
62 scenes, while conservators anywhere in the world
are now able with ease to scrutinize and consider the
paintings’ every crack, blemish, and technical feature.
For the archaeologist these files possess a further
potential to be investigated here: namely, what they
might be coaxed to reveal about the architecture of the
tomb beneath this decoration. The short answer seems
to be: a great deal.
Cautious evaluation of the Factum Arte scans over
the course of several months has yielded results which
are beyond intriguing: indications of two previously
unknown doorways, one set within a larger partition
wall and both seemingly untouched since antiquity.
The implications are extraordinary: for, if digital
appearance translates into physical reality, it seems we
are now faced not merely with the prospect of a new,
Tutankhamun-era storeroom to the west; to the north
appears to be signalled a continuation of tomb KV 62,
INTRODUCTION
Early in 2014, Madrid-based art-replication specialists
Factum Arte took the significant step of publishing
online the data1 on which a critical element of their
facsimile of the tomb of Tutankhamun2 – since opened
on a site adjacent to the Luxor (west bank) house of
Howard Carter3 – would in large part be based. The
content of this public release was unprecedented:
high-definition colour photography of the painted
Version 1.3, July 23, 2015
Copyright © Nicholas Reeves 2015
* The research on which this study is based was initiated in
February 2014, towards the end of my tenure as Lila
Acheson Wallace Associate Curator of Egyptian Art at The
Metropolitan Museum of Art; the paper was completed in
July 2015 as University Indian Ruins Visiting Scholar at the
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona. To each
of these institutions and their staffs I extend my sincere
thanks. For helpful discussions around the paper’s theme I
am indebted to Dieter Arnold, Pearce Paul Creasman,
Noreen Doyle, Yumiko Ueno, Richard H. Wilkinson, and
Kei Yamamoto. For other significant contributions I am
grateful to David Bowker, Douglas Curtis, †Ruth Eldridge,
Dunja Hersak, Adam Lowe, Stephen Pollard, Timothy
Potts, Jon Scoones, Cat Warsi, and Kent Weeks. It goes
without saying that responsibility for any errors of fact or
interpretation is mine alone.
1
http://www.factumfoundation.org/pag/210/HighResolution-Image-Viewer; http://www.highres.factumarte.org/Tutankhamun/ (accessed July 16, 2015). Since the
quality is significantly higher than that of the images
reproduced in this report, for detailed examination of the
Factum Arte scans the reader is referred online.
2
Factum Arte 2012.
3
For a report, see [Forbes] 2013.
4
Previous surveys of these scenes have included Steindorff
1938, and Johnson 1993-1994.
5
Room designations throughout this paper follow those of
Weeks 2003, online at
http://www.thebanmappingproject.com (accessed July 16,
2015).
6
It may be noted that those portions of the south wall
decoration removed by Carter at the time of his clearance –
see below, n. 21 – are not currently included in the Factum
Arte online documentation.
1
ownership uncertain);10 the extensive, kingly corridor
tomb KV 57 (ultimately employed by Horemheb);11
and the shaft tomb KV 58 (original ownership
uncertain). 12 A storage pit and a further singlechambered shaft associated with these or other burials
of the period are, respectively: KV 54 (containing
materials seemingly displaced in antiquity from KV
62); 13 and the recently discovered and as yet only
partially published funerary storeroom KV 63 (temp.
Tutankhamun). 14 For the relative locations of these
finds, see Fig. 3.
and within these uncharted depths an earlier royal
interment – that of Nefertiti herself, celebrated
consort, co-regent, and eventual successor of pharaoh
Akhenaten.
In the pages which follow I set out my arguments in
support of this evaluation: in Part One I summarize
the current understanding of KV 62 in the light of
recent developments in late- and post-Amarna history
and archaeology; in Part Two I present the Factum
Arte scans and a considered assessment of these in the
context of other, independent features which both
support and clarify my analysis.
Prima facie the case is compelling. It goes without
saying, however, that a final determination on the
presence – or otherwise – of additional elements
within KV 62, and their precise character, will be
made only on the ground. Obviously a full and
detailed geophysical survey of this famous tomb and its
surrounding area is now called for – and I would
suggest as one of Egyptology’s highest priorities.
2015).
10
Reeves 1990a, 131-133 and 136-137; Reeves and
Wilkinson 1996, 153; Reeves 2003, 69-70; Weeks 2003,
sheet 65/70, and online at
2015). Cf. Reeves 2001b.
11
Reeves 1990a, 75-79 and 88-90; Reeves and Wilkinson
1996, 130-133; Weeks 2003, sheets 66-67/70, online at
2015). The plan of KV 57 picks up on an interesting feature
in the tomb of Amenhotep III (WV 22) – what I have
elsewhere (Reeves 2003, 69-71) described as a subsidiary
“queen’s suite” (Jc-Jcc-Jccc). Room Jc within KV 57 is the
only (known) chamber in the Valley of the Kings of
appropriate size and potential date to have accommodated in
their correct orientation (Bell 1990) the large gilded shrines
eventually employed for the burial of Tutankhamun
(Piankoff 1951) (which appear, in fact, to represent a mixed
set drawn from two separate burial equipments: that of
Akhenaten [shrine II?], and that of his co-regent,
Neferneferuaten [I (outermost)?, III and IV]). (Note that
Carter numbered the Tutankhamun shrines from the outside
in – i.e. in the order in which he encountered them.) For
this re-use see further below. The shrines’ possible intended
destination, combined with the fact that the wall decorations
of KV 57 were laid out according to an Amarna-style, 20square grid (Robins 1983a), suggests at least the possibility
that KV 57 may have originally been cut for Amenhotep IVAkhenaten and later planned as (if not realized for) the
immediate post-Amarna burials of Akhenaten and
Neferneferuaten.
12
Reeves 1981b; Reeves 1982a; Reeves 1990a, 72-75 and
87-88; Reeves and Wilkinson 1996, 186; Weeks 2003,
sheet 68/70, online at
2015).
13
Reeves 1990a, 69-70 and 86; Reeves 1990b, 38-39 – in
both of which I proposed as the original place of deposition
the KV 62 entrance corridor (B). For the pit’s plan and
section see Weeks 2003, sheets 66-63/70, online at
2015). For its contents see Winlock 1941 and, revisited,
Arnold 2010.
14
For the scattered bibliography to date see
http://www.kv-63.com/publications.html (accessed July
16, 2015). The presence within KV 63 of several empty
coffins is suggestive of a transfer of Amarna mummies for
reburial in the Valley of the Kings – to judge from the small
PART ONE: THE TOMB AND THE
HISTORICAL SITUATION
The tomb of Tutankhamun 7 (Fig. 2) is that now
numbered KV 62 in the Valley of the Kings, located in
the central area of that cemetery’s principal wadi in
close proximity to other deposits variously associated
with the late- and post-Amarna periods (ca. 13401320 BC). These finds comprise: the corridor tomb
KV 16 (ultimately employed by Ramesses I); 8 the
unfinished corridor tomb KV 55 (originally employed
for the reinterment of Tiye, mother of Akhenaten, to
which the burial of Akhenaten was added temp.
Tutankhamun; the bulk of Tiye’s burial, including her
body, seems to have been removed temp. Ramesses
IX); 9 the shaft tomb KV 56 (original queenly
7
The literature is immense: for a recent bibliography see
Wong 2013. For the plan, see Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70,
and online at http://www.thebanmappingproject.com
(accessed July 16, 2015).
8
Reeves 1990a, 91-92 and 99; Reeves and Wilkinson 1996,
134-135. For the plan, see Weeks 2003, sheet 33/70, and
online at http://www.thebanmappingproject.com (accessed
July 16, 2015). The tomb is included here solely on the basis
of its employment in the layout of the painted decoration of
a 20-square (Amarna) grid – for which see Robins 1983b.
9
Reeves 1981a, to be read in conjunction with Reeves
1982b; Reeves 1990a, 42-49 and 55-60; Reeves 1990c, xiixiv; Reeves and Wilkinson 1996, 117-121 – my opinions
now modified to regard Akhenaten’s presence within KV 55
as a primary interment rather than as a burial transferred
from el-Amarna: see Reeves in press a. For the plan, see
Weeks 2003, sheet 64/70, and online at
2
The entrance to KV 6215 consists of a staircase (A)
leading down to a sloping corridor (B) which, when
first entered in 1922, preserved intact at either end its
original, (partially re-)closed, 16 (re-)plastered and
(re-)sealed blockings (Carter nos. 004 and 013). 17
Oriented towards the west, corridor B drops down to
access, first, a transverse chamber (the Antechamber,
I) and, beyond that, a single, sunken storeroom (the
Annexe, Ia) – this latter entered via a small,
rectangular doorway cut in the rock at the south end
of the Antechamber’s west wall, again originally
closed off, plastered, and stamped over with large
seals (Carter no. 171).
To the north of the Antechamber, and similarly dug
to a lower level, lies Tutankhamun’s Burial Chamber
(J) – at the time of the tomb’s discovery a space
separated from the Antechamber by a plastered, drystone partition pierced by an internal doorway to
permit continuing access; following the king’s burial
this internal doorway had itself been blocked with
rough stones, plastered, and again stamped over its
entire surface with large seals (Carter no. 028). At the
far end of the Burial Chamber, on its east, stands a
further doorway, never closed, which gives
admittance to a second storage chamber (the Treasury,
Ja).
As has long been recognized, KV 62’s restricted size
is less than appropriate for a king’s burial of the
Eighteenth Dynasty. The common (though, as I shall
argue, mistaken) consensus is that the sepulchre had
been selectively enlarged and adapted for
Tutankhamun’s use from a much smaller tomb
originally intended for a private individual.18
Only one of KV 62’s current suite of four rooms
had ever been plastered and painted and that was the
Burial Chamber (J), or “House of Gold” (pr-nbw) – the
ancient terminology clearly referencing this
decoration’s conspicuous yellow ground. 19 The
paintings within this room document the principal
stages in Tutankhamun’s physical and spiritual
transition from this world to the realm of the gods.
Although affected by serious mould growth,20 these
painted surfaces remain both sound and intact. 21
Covering as they do virtually every inch of the walls,
the underlying architecture is almost wholly obscured.
Carter, followed by all Egyptologists since, seems to
have accepted that beneath lay only bedrock,
influenced in this understanding by the fact that four
eccentrically placed amulet emplacements (Carter
nos. 257-260) cut through the decoration to expose
solid limestone (Fig. 4).22
In contrast to the modest scale and simplicity of the
tomb proper, the range, quality, and richness of the
furnishings crammed into Tutankhamun’s four small
chambers were overwhelming.23 While the majority of
Egyptologists have tended to take this material at face
value, those looking more critically have observed the
18
Recently restated, for example, by Eaton-Krauss 2009-10,
38-39.
19
Carter and Gardiner 1917; Černý 1973, 29-30. Černý
chose to associate the designation “House of Gold” with the
large shrines of gilded wood surrounding the sarcophagus. In
the Ramesses IV tomb plan a nest of five such shrines is
shown, together with the framework for a funerary pall
erected between shrines four and five (outermost);
Tutankhamun’s tomb, however, contained only four shrines
+ pall framework between shrines three and four
(outermost) – employing Carter’s numbering, between
shrines I (outermost) and II. The explanation for this
difference in quantity probably lies in the fact that (the larger
proportion of) Tutankhamun’s shrines had originally been
prepared for an individual of (junior) co-regent status (for
which see n. 11 above, and further below).
20
Most recently Wong et al. 2012, S323-S324.
21
The entire south wall decoration remained intact until this
artificial blocking on which it had in part been executed was
dismantled by Carter to facilitate the extraction of the large
funerary shrines erected around the royal sarcophagus. See
Reeves 1990b, 73-74.
22
The amulets themselves had been installed at a later stage
of the funeral proceedings, after which the emplacements
were closed off with splinters of limestone mortared in place
and finally painted over in a slightly different shade of
yellow. See Carter no. 257 = Burton photo p0879a
(opened) (east); Carter no. 258 = Burton photo p0879
(west); Carter no. 260 = Burton photo p0879b (south);
Carter no. 259 = Burton photo p0879c (north).
23
For a basic listing of the contents, see Murray and Nuttall
1963, and the survey in Reeves 1990b.
seal impressions so far announced, carried out
contemporaneously with activities within KV 55 and KV 62
during or immediately after the reign of Tutankhamun. As I
suggest elsewhere (Reeves in press a), one of the items
recovered from KV 63 – a dismantled framework “bier”
(Ertman 2009) – may have had a role in the Opening of the
Mouth ceremony of an Egyptian royal of this period.
15
Cf. Griffith Institute, Carter MSS, I.3.31 for a discussion
of the tomb’s component parts, and see below, n. 44. For
the excavator’s Griffith Institute archive relating to the
Tutankhamun clearance (including Harry Burton
photographs), see online at
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/discoveringTut/(accessed
July 16, 2015). 16
Tutankhamun’s tomb had in fact been entered by robbers
at least twice in antiquity: Reeves 1990a, 61-69 and 80-85;
Reeves 1990b, 95-97. The plundering appears to have been
superficial, and confined to items easily to hand; the inner
shrines, sarcophagus and nested coffins of the king had not
been penetrated.
17
For the excavation cards these Carter numbers refer to see
online at
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/discoveringTut/(accessed
July 16, 2015). 3
presence of a range of objects taken over from
predecessor kings and adapted for Tutankhamun’s
use.24 It transpires that the extent of this recycling is
far greater than previously recognized,25 with direct or
indirect evidence of re-use now detected in an
astonishing 80% or more of the tomb’s core burial
equipment (to include the large gilded shrines,
sarcophagus, coffins, gold mask, and canopic
equipment). Originally produced several years before
Tutankhamun’s accession, during the reign of
Akhenaten, this material falls into two distinct groups:
(1) a stray scattering of pieces seemingly once
intended for the burial of Akhenaten himself;26 and
(2), by far the larger proportion, items initially
prepared for the use of Akhenaten’s junior co-regent –
that mysterious and much-discussed individual
distinguished by the cartouched names Ankhkheperure
(+ epithet) Neferneferuaten (+ epithet).27
These objects provide a remarkable insight into the
crisis generated by Tutankhamun’s early and
unexpected death. With funerary preparations for the
boy king not yet set in train, the ancient undertakers
were clearly obliged to improvise: whatever lay
conveniently to hand in the Valley of the Kings and
unused in palace stores was seized upon, adapted, and
pressed into service – with the final result, in terms of
both tomb and treasure, falling considerably short of
the pharaonic norm.28
Close study of this repurposed equipment sheds
light too on the identity of its obscure co-regent
owner. Body shape,29 iconography,30 and inscriptions31
combine to identify Ankhkheperure (+ epithet)
Neferneferuaten (+ epithet) as a woman, and most
likely the great royal wife Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti in
newly elevated guise.32 This same lady’s rise evidently
continued, culminating in her appointment as sole
pharaoh following Akhenaten’s death and the adoption
of a new and developed form of her semi-regal name –
Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare-djeserkheperu.33
the Amarna dead appear to have escaped thanks to the
Nineteenth Dynasty removal of their names from cemetery
records (Reeves in press a). From the physical size and
splendour of these kings’ tombs, however, it is difficult to
believe that their contents were not significantly richer than
that of Tutankhamun – which, as the iconography of specific
pieces reveals (Reeves in press a), as items intended for a
female co-regent in fact fall somewhere between that of a
queen and a full pharaoh.
29
For example, Carter nos. 289b (figure with breasts,
standing on the back of a leopard); 458 (shawabti). See
Reeves 1990b, 131, bottom left, and 138, middle, far right.
30
For example, Carter obj. no. 254 (Tutankhamun’s second
coffin); 266g(1-4) (canopic coffinettes). See Reeves 2011;
Reeves in press a.
31
The female sex of Akhenaten’s co-regent was first
demonstrated textually by Julia Samson from the occasional
inclusion in the prenomen of faience ring bezels of the
feminine marker, t – Ankhetkheperure (+ epithet). See for
details Harris 1992; Gabolde 1998, 147-185.
32
See Reeves 2001a, 172-173; Reeves 2011; Reeves in press
a; Dodson 2009, 38. I had originally dated this elevation as
co-regent to around Year 12 of Akhenaten’s reign; the
recent discovery of a graffito dated Year 16, however, in
which Nefertiti is referred to still as great royal wife,
presumably indicates it was later (Van der Perre 2014).
Nefertiti is the only candidate for whom a consistent
progression in status may from the very start be discerned –
in her queenly names (early evolving from simple “Nefertiti”
to the more elaborate “Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti” – which
addition of course anticipates the future co-regent’s nomen),
but also in her queenly titulary (developing from the regular
Hmt nsw wrt to the still obscure but evidently superior Hmt
nsw aAt – Reeves 1978). Other Egyptologists, accepting as an
actual name (rather than as an epithet) the (d) nomen (n. 27
above) and sundry references in the Amarna Letters, prefer
to identify the co-regent Neferneferuaten with Akhenaten’s
eldest daughter, Meritaten (e.g. Allen 2009; Gabolde 2009;
von Falck 2012) – notwithstanding that both
Neferneferuaten and Meritaten are mentioned together, and
as distinct entities, in one of the key pieces of evidence from
the period (Carter obj. no. 001k, Burton photo p0478;
Beinlich and Saleh 1989, 4).
33
The idea goes back to Harris 1973 (though his opinions
have since changed: Harris 2008). See more recently Reeves
2001a, 172-173, and Reeves 2014 – with the alterations to
the famous “Golden Throne” (Carter object no. 091) now
revealing a clear sequence of inscriptional re-use from
Akhenaten through Neferneferuaten to Smenkhkare and
24
See particularly Engelbach 1940; Harris 1992; EatonKrauss 1993, 1994, 1998; Gabolde 1998; Reeves 2014
(Hammond 2014); Reeves in press a.
25
Reeves 2011; Reeves in press a.
26
Harris 1992.
27
Ibid. The presence and nature of these epithets is
significant, and in the case of the prenomen, Ankhkheperure
serve to distinguish texts relating to this co-regent from
those of the full pharaoh Ankhkheperure Smenkhkaredjeserkheperu. The different name-forms (prenomen :
nomen) employed by the co-regent Neferneferuaten
(epithets italicized), in likely chronological order, are:
(a) Ankhkheperure-beloved of Neferkheperure [=
Akhenaten] : Neferneferuaten-beloved of Waenre [=
Akhenaten]
(b) Ankhkheperure-beloved of Neferkheperure (or, beloved of
Waenre) [= Akhenaten] : Neferneferuaten-she who is beneficial
for her husband [= Akhenaten]
(c) Ankhkheperure-beloved of the Aten [= Akhenaten] :
Neferneferuaten-the ruler
(d) Ankhkheperure : Meryaten (lit. Beloved of the Aten [=
Akhenaten])
The co-regent’s sex is clearly established as female (see
further below, n. 31) and, as the epithets imply, her status
wholly dependent on Akhenaten.
28
Our understanding of a “standard” pharaonic tomb at this
period is compromised by the fact that the more significant
burials in the Valley had been officially stripped of their
valuables at the end of the New Kingdom (ca. 1000 BC)
(Reeves 1990a, 276) – a process from which generally only
4
It was presumably at this point, as full king, that
Nefertiti’s now outmoded co-regent’s tomb
furnishings were set aside – we may assume in favour
of something very much better and of fully pharaonic
design.34 To date, however, not a scrap of this actual
burial (rather than materials from one or other of
Nefertiti’s earlier, planned interments)35 has ever been
brought to light. That her ultimate resting place was at
Thebes, 36 under the name of Smenkhkare, I believe is
now virtually certain, with a strong presumption that
the burial remains hidden.37 Now, for the first time,
we may be in a position to speculate precisely where.
(a) West Wall
PART TWO: THE BURIAL CHAMBER SCANS
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
Two of the four Factum Arte scans – those of the west
and north walls – shed significant new light on KV 62
and its development.
Tutankhaten/amun (on which discovery see for the present
Hammond 2014). I do not subscribe to the view which
posits the existence of two regal entities sharing the
Ankhkheperure prenomen – namely, an (earlier) male
Ankhkheperure Smenkhkare-djeserkheperu and a (later)
female Ankh(et)kheperure + epithet Neferneferuaten +
epithet (Hornung 2006, 207) – not least because both
“individuals,” besides sharing virtually the same prenomen,
are found associated with the same great royal wife,
Meritaten (as great royal wife of Neferneferuaten – Carter
obj. no. 001k, Burton photo p0478; as great royal wife of
Smenkhkare – Beinlich and Saleh 1989, 4; Davies 1905, pl.
XLI).
34
Given the probability that the reign of Smenkhkare was
exceptionally short, being brought to a swift (and unhappy)
end following her appeal to the king of the Hittites for a son
to occupy the throne of Egypt by her side (for the claims of
Nefertiti, as opposed to those of Tutankhamun’s widow,
Ankhesenamun, see J.R. Harris in Reeves 2001a, 176-177;
Miller 2007), it is likely that the obsequies of two full
pharaohs, Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, in the end fell to
Tutankhamun’s responsibility. If so, then Smenkhkare as the
immediate predecessor and the direct source of
Tutankhamun’s legitimacy (Revez 2010; Helck 1984, 2031,
6-7) will presumably have taken precedence; despite the
Hittite “betrayal,” given her efforts when alive at
accommodating the Amun priesthood Nefertiti will also
have wielded the greater influence, at least at Thebes. Under
such circumstances it would seem to me not improbable
that, too senior to employ her existing and only “semipharaonic” (Reeves in press a) co-regent’s funerary
equipment, Nefertiti was in the end assigned Akhenaten’s
own burial furniture, suitably re-inscribed (see below). This
prioritizing of claims would explain the (literally) care-less
interment of Akhenaten within the Valley tomb of his
mother, Tiye (KV 55), contained in a hastily adapted coffin
originally prepared for his secondary wife Kiya and
accompanied by four canopic jars appropriated from this
same woman: not only was Akhenaten seriously unpopular,
but his post-mortem approbation was for Tutankhamun an
irrelevance.
35
I.e. the shawabti prepared for, but not actually employed
in, the el-Amarna burial of Nefertiti as great royal wife
(Loeben 1986; Loeben 1999); and of course the
Neferneferuaten equipment adapted for Tutankhamun
(above, and Reeves in press a).
36
The Theban mortuary temple of (pharaoh) Ankhkheperure
is mentioned in the well-known Pere graffito: Gardiner
1928, 11, pl. VI, l.33.
The west wall of Tutankhamun’s Burial Chamber (J) is
that decorated with the twelve apes of the first hour of
the Book of the Hidden Chamber, or Amduat.38 The
painted surface of this wall is here reproduced as Fig.
5, with my annotated version of Factum Arte’s scan of
the surface shown in both positive and negative views
as Figs. 6 and 7. For greater detail the reader is
referred to the high-resolution images posted online.39
Close examination of these surface scans reveals,
beneath the plaster, several features in shallow relief.40
These traces are here assigned the reference numbers
1-4. The first, no. 1, located to the immediate right of
the amuletic niche (Carter no. 258), runs the full
height of the wall; no. 2 proceeds upwards at an angle
of 90 degrees to the floor, stopping at a level of just
over one third of the wall’s height; feature 3 runs from
the ceiling down, stopping at a point adjacent to no. 2;
while the travel of feature no. 4 essentially mimics that
of no. 2.
The impression conveyed by their somewhat
“frayed” appearance and slightly angled course is that
nos. 1 and 3 represent natural faults in the rock
analogous to that observed by Carter running across
the Antechamber and Burial Chamber ceilings (see
below). The blurred verticals 2 and 4 bring to mind
something quite different, however, and that is
artificially defined edges – specifically, from their
matched heights, the twin jambs of a doorframe.
Interestingly, this interpretation is reinforced by the
abrupt disappearance of feature nos. 2, 3 and 4 at
precisely the same horizon. This disappearance
arguably serves: (1) to locate the putative doorway’s
rock-cut lintel; and (2) to confirm that the living rock
37
Cf. Reeves and Wilkinson 1996, 126; Reeves 2002a.
Hornung 1999a, 34; Hornung 1963, I, 4-22, II, 9-41; cf.
Robins 2007, 327-328.
39
http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/
40
The short painted vertical and longer, broken horizontals
located between nos. 3 and 2/4 in Figs. 6-7 are merely
bleed-throughs of the overlying painted decoration, and
without significance.
38
5
between 2 and 4, through which the no. 3 fault
formerly continued, had been physically removed and
replaced with an artificial blocking (cf. Fig. 8).41
As fanciful as this assessment may seem, it is in fact
supported by several independent pieces of evidence.
First, meaningful parallels to this specific
combination of traces may be cited from elsewhere in
the Valley of the Kings. Two identical, but exposed,
instances of neatly cut jambs and curtailed, supra-lintel
fault are shown in Fig. 9: left, above the entrance to
the Treasury doorway (Ja) within the tomb of
Tutankhamun; and right, above and defining the
entrance to room Jbb in the tomb of Amenhotep III
(WV 22). Closed up and finally plastered over, it is
apparent that both voids would have presented
“ghosts” identical to those now discerned beneath the
painted surface of Tutankhamun’s west wall.
Secondly, the putative doorway these west wall
traces delineate turns out to be identical in size to that
adjacent doorway to the south connecting the KV 62
Antechamber (I) with its Annexe (Ia) (Figs. 10-11).42
Since the odds against this being mere coincidence are
surely high, the inference must be that the perceived
new blocking is indeed real and that it and its fellow
are cotemporaneous, cut during the same phase of the
tomb’s development.
Thirdly, that particular phase of development will
almost certainly have been the adaptation of KV 62 for
Tutankhamun’s regal use.43 Although the final layout
of the young king’s four-chambered tomb is usually
considered somewhat arbitrary, a sketch now
preserved among Carter’s papers in the Griffith
Institute, Oxford (Fig. 12, left) reveals that, within
the limitations imposed by KV 62’s underlying plan
(see below), the ancient architect’s adaptation had
been both deliberate and rational.44 With a notional 90
degree, counter-clockwise turn of the tomb’s
Antechamber, Annexe, Burial Chamber, and
Treasury, Carter was able to show that KV 62 in fact
incorporates all of the key features of a full-sized
Eighteenth Dynasty royal tomb: burial chamber (I),
crypt (J), and satellite storerooms (Fig. 12, right). The
sole substantive difference between Carter’s
“corrected” plan and that of a standard royal sepulchre
lies in the number of Tutankhamun’s orbital
storerooms. At this period the regular count is four,
arranged at 2, 4, 8 and 10 o’clock. KV 62, by
contrast, displays only two such satellites – a “2
o’clock” (the Treasury, Ja) and an “8 o’clock” (the
Annexe, Ia), with two further side rooms clearly
missing from the plan as we currently have it. Of these
absences, since Tutankhamun’s tomb turns decisively
to the right (a feature considered further below),
obviously a “4 o’clock” chamber can never have been
present since its designated position is that now
occupied by the tomb’s entrance corridor (B).45 The
position of the missing “10 o’clock” side-room,
however, corresponds precisely with that of the
doorway now discerned beneath the decoration of
Tutankhamun’s west wall (Fig. 13).
The traditional function of such orbital side rooms
was storage, 46 but it is worth pointing out that
occasionally these treasuries were adapted and
enlarged to take on a different role. For example, the
situation of the proposed new KV 62 doorway, close
to the head-end of Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus, is
identical to that of the secondary “queen’s suite”47 JbJbb in the tomb of Amenhotep III (WV 22). Though
initially cut for regular storage, the WV 22 parallel
had been visibly enlarged during its lifetime48 with the
evident intention of receiving an interment – that of
Sitamun, Amenhotep III’s daughter and later great
royal wife.49 Theoretically, therefore, a “10 o’clock”
45
Unless, that is, a fourth side-room was provided
elsewhere within the tomb. The sole possible option is again
concealment beneath the Burial Chamber’s painted
decoration – though from the Factum Arte surface scans I
have been unable to detect obvious indications. The
anomalous greater height of the magical niche Carter no.
258 – cut into the solid portion of the south wall (165 cm
from the floor, as opposed to a height-range of between
120-130 cm for its fellows: cf. Fig. 1) – might, however, be
suggestive, since it is sufficiently elevated to accommodate
beneath another doorway similar in height to that leading
from the Antechamber into the Annexe (I-Ia). The close
proximity of this southern niche to the west wall, however,
could be seen to lessen this possibility.
46
Cf. Carter MSS, Griffith Institute, I.A.272 ff.
47
A similar suite may be observed in the tomb of Horemheb
(KV 57): see above, n. 11.
48
Kondo 1995, 30.
49
Hayes 1935, 29; Reeves 2003, 69-71. Amenhotep III’s
senior great royal wife, Tiye, appears to have been intended
for burial within Amenhotep III’s principal “queen’s suite”,
41
Comparable to others in the tomb: cf. Carter card nos.
004, 013, 028, and 171.
42
Carter (and Mace) 1923-1933, III, 100, describes the
Annexe doorway (the lower portion of which had been
broken through in antiquity and never made good) as 51
inches (145 cm) high by 37 inches (94 cm) wide, “blocked
up with rough splinters of limestone and … plastered over
on the outside. The plaster, while still wet, had received
numerous impressions of four different sepulchral-seals of
the king”. No evidence of any stamped seals may be detected
beneath the decoration of the west or north walls, the
concealing paintings themselves presumably (and correctly)
considered security enough. Carter’s measurement of the
Annexe itself was 14 feet (4.27 m) long, 8 feet 6 inches
(2.59 m) wide, and 8 feet 5 inches (2.57 m) high (ibid.,
100-101).
43
And see below, n. 61.
44
For the Carter sketch see Reeves 1990b, 70 (my Fig. 12,
left). The adaptation of KV 62 for royal use is discussed in
Carter (and Mace) 1923-1933, III, v-viii.
6
chamber within KV 62 might have been employed in a
similar manner – that is, to accommodate the burial,
or burials, of additional member(s) of the (Amarna)
royal family.50
the painted north wall at its eastern end – significantly
distant, it may be noted, from that wall’s rock-cut
amuletic niche (see above). If so, then feature no. 3
presumably establishes that blocking’s furthest extent
– with the gap between 3 and the east wall signalling
the presence of a stepped jamb similar to that
encountered to the left of the Treasury doorway J-Ja
(cf. Fig. 9, left).
A second indicator that these north wall traces may
be meaningful is their interplay with other features of
the tomb’s design. Particularly revealing is the fact
that the putative partition’s left-hand (western) edge –
vertical no. 2 – lines up precisely with the
Antechamber’s west wall, as if in direct continuation
of it (Fig. 18). This correlates in turn with differences
in cutting observed within the Burial Chamber’s
architecture – differences which reveal room J to have
been enlarged westward along this very same line54
(Fig. 19).
The pieces of the jigsaw begin to fall convincingly
into place. Evidently the Antechamber (I) and Burial
Chamber (J) had originally taken the form not of
separate rooms but of a single, extended corridor – a
corridor which gives every appearance of proceeding
deeper into the gebel, beyond the Burial Chamber’s
decorated north wall.
This recognition is significant, because if KV 62 had
indeed begun its existence as a corridor-tomb its
precise form will tell us who, in broad terms, it had
originally been commissioned for. In the same way
that a leftward orientation characterizes the tomb of a
king at this period (cf. Fig. 12, right), a corridor-tomb
with rightward axial turn seems to be indicative of
queenly use.55 The establishing parallel is WA D:56 a
right-turning corridor-tomb prepared for Hatshepsut
in her role as principal consort of Thutmose II.57 The
(b) North Wall
The longer, north wall of Tutankhamun’s Burial
Chamber carries a painted decoration incorporating
three separate scenes. As now labelled, these depict,
from right to left: (1) the Opening of the Mouth of
Tutankhamun’s mummy by the God’s Father Ay; (2)
Tutankhamun welcomed into the Underworld by the
goddess Nut; and (3) Tutankhamun, accompanied by
his ka, embraced by the god Osiris.51 Factum Arte’s
photographic coverage of these three episodes is here
reproduced as Fig. 14, with my annotated version of
the wall-surface capture shown in positive and
negative views as Figs. 15 and 16. For closer scrutiny
of these walls the reader is again referred to Factum
Arte’s high-resolution online images.52
As with the scans of KV 62’s west wall, inspection
of the north wall’s physical surface reveals a series of
distinct, underlying features here labelled 1-6. Of
these traces, no. 1 runs somewhat irregularly the full
height of the wall to connect with a major fault
stretching diagonally across the ceiling (see Fig. 4);53
no. 2 – vertical and exceptionally clear – runs
intermittently down towards the floor from a distinct
dog-leg fissure close to the ceiling; while, adjacent to
the east wall, no. 3 – again strikingly vertical and
sharply if sporadically defined – follows a course
closely similar to that of no. 2. Nos. 4-6 will be
discussed presently.
While no. 1 is demonstrably natural, two features
suggest that lines 2 and 3 are to be understood as
artificially cut and thus archaeologically significant.
The first of these features is the dog’s-leg opening
located at the top of vertical no. 2 (Fig. 17, above),
whose positioning, angle and course virtually replicate
a type of settlement crack associated with contraction
within an artificially built partition wall (Fig. 17,
below).
In combination with the sharp verticality of the
remainder of feature no. 2, it is possible that we are
here presented with evidence for yet another
undisclosed blocking within KV 62, this time beneath
54
Wong et al. 2012, S323, fig. 2; Weeks 2009, 16 (not
seen).
55
My earlier thought had been that KV 62 perhaps turned to
the right for the same reason that those quarrying KV 56 had
failed to complete the right-hand side of that tomb’s single
chamber – namely, to avoid collision with possible tomb or
tombs lying unknown in the area between these two burials.
For likely indications of two further tombs somewhere in
the vicinity see Reeves 2002b, 9.
56
Carter 1917, 107-118, pl. XXI. Other right-turning
tombs prepared for queens include KV 20 (Hatshepsut), AN
B (Ahmose-Nefertiri), DB 358 (Ahmose-Meryetamun), and
perhaps DB 320 (the royal cache) and WC A and B – for the
plans of which see conveniently Thomas 1966.
57
One implication of this understanding would be that KV
55 was indeed begun to receive the burial of Tiye, as I have
long advocated though on different grounds: Reeves 1981a,
48-55; Reeves 1990a, 43-44. On the other recognizable
(and lesser?) type of Eighteenth Dynasty queenly tomb found
in the Valley of the Kings – that with a single-columned
burial chamber – see Reeves 2003, 69-73.
Jc-Jcc-Jccc: see ibid. and above, n. 11. It is probable that the
WV 22 side-rooms were originally intended to be covered
by the burial-chamber decoration.
50
Which inevitably brings to mind the empty “transportcoffins” of KV 63 – for which see further above, n. 14.
51
Robins 2007, 324-327.
52
http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/
53
Also Reeves 1990b, 71.
7
similarities between WA D and the core-plan now
discerned for KV 62 are striking (Fig. 22), and
powerful evidence that the original owner of
Tutankhamun’s tomb had in fact been a royal woman.
To return to the perceived continuation of this
queenly corridor-tomb beyond the Burial Chamber’s
north wall: discrete evidence in its support may be
gleaned from other features within the Factum Arte
scan – specifically, those traces designated 4-6 in Figs.
15-16. Albeit somewhat fugitive, the traces are
sufficient to suggest, within this partition, the outline
of an internal doorway (Fig. 20). It is possible to
discern not only the paired jambs of this proposed
access (nos. 4, 6), but also the general location of its
lintel – a presence which plaster roughly applied at
point 5 with the intention to conceal in fact serves
only to highlight.
As already mentioned, a blocking very similar to
this had been encountered by Carter separating the
outer section of the tomb from Tutankhamun’s Burial
Chamber (J) (Carter no. 028) (Fig. 21). The
employment at this point of a partition rather than a
simple rock-cut doorway is explained both by the
manner in which the tomb’s ground plan had
developed, and by the reasoning behind that
development. As we have discerned, the Antechamber
(I) and Burial Chamber (J) had started out not as
separate rooms at all, but as a single access route – a
route which, in its first, queenly manifestation,
presumably replicated in its width the narrow,
preceding entrance-corridor B (cf. Fig. 30). An access
route is what this section of the tomb would remain,
with its subsequent enlargement to current
Antechamber width necessitated by what it had been
necessary to manoeuvre through it and beyond:
namely, the huge, gilded wood panels of
Tutankhamun’s sepulchral shrines.58
The indications now of a second partition wall with
internal doorway, located deeper within this same
notional corridor and hidden beneath the Burial
Chamber’s north wall decoration, makes two
important points. First, the form of this putative
blocking, with the need for on-going access implied by
its inner doorway, confirms that whatever lies beyond
this north wall had indeed been conceived as a
corridor-continuation; it did not represent the mere
tidying-up of an unfinished and uneven section of
quarrying. Secondly, the blocking’s width suggests
that this corridor-continuation had maintained these
Antechamber-like proportions and for the same
practical reason: the need to facilitate, this time at a
previous stage in the history of KV 62, the
introduction into the tomb’s hidden depths of equally
massive items of burial furniture. The evidence, in
short, points to the establishment beyond this point of
a second, earlier interment surrounded by a similar,
regal nest of enormous, gilded shrines – in other
words, to the burial within KV 62 of another pharaoh.
It begins to look as if Egyptology’s traditional
reading of KV 62 as a small, private tomb
subsequently enlarged to four chambers for
Tutankhamun’s exclusive use has been very much in
error. Rather, the indications are that what we now
know as KV 62 represents merely the outermost
portion of an extended, corridor-style “tomb-withina-tomb” – a considerably larger entity than previously
understood, containing sequential burials of (1) an
earlier queen who, by her employment of a nest of
large sepulchral shrines had achieved full pharaonic
status, and (2) a later male king, Tutankhamun
himself, each interred within her (innermost) and his
(outermost) dedicated burial apartments.59
Finally, what light do the Burial Chamber paintings
themselves shed on the foregoing analysis? A 2012
survey of these by the Getty Conservation Institute
(GCI) proves exceptionally informative.60
A key revelation of the Getty’s recent report was
that the north wall decoration of Tutankhamun’s
Burial Chamber (J) differs in a number of crucial
respects from its three companion scenes to the east,
west and south.
First, it transpires that the plaster + paint sequence
discerned for the north is quite distinct from the
relatively consistent stratigraphy shared by the Burial
Chamber’s east, west, and south wall surfaces61 (cf.
59
Cf. the (planned) burials of Tiye and Sitamun in suites JcJcc-Jccc and Jb-Jbb respectively within the tomb of
Amenhotep III (WV 22) (Hayes 1935, 29); and the Amarna
royal tomb (TA 26), which seems at one stage to have been
intended to receive, in its separate forks, the burials of
Akhenaten and his co-regent Neferneferuaten (Reeves
2001a, 129, 179). The tomb-within-a-tomb concept was
taken up again during the Nineteenth Dynasty with KV 14 –
for the plan of which see Reeves and Wilkinson 1996, 157158.
60
Wong et al. 2012.
61
The principal difference between the stratigraphy of the
east, west and south walls is in the occurrence on the west
wall of a “Coarse gray layer” (f2) between the universal
“Coarse brown plaster” (g) foundation and the similarly
occurring “Fine buff plaster” (d2) (see the GCI chart
reproduced as Fig. 23 in this paper). This may indicate that
the west wall had been plastered before those of the east and
south; alternatively, if the Getty sampled at the edges of the
four niches, which seems likely, then layer f2 may represent
nothing more than an accidental smear from the plastered
closure of one or both of the putative new blockings
underlying the west and north scenes. Whatever the precise
explanation, the presence on the west of the grey plaster
layer f2 directly over the coarse brown levelling plaster g
surely indicates that any storeroom concealed beneath – or
at least its stocking and subsequent sealing – does indeed
58
Cf. Carter (and Mace) 1923-1933, II, 39-53.
8
Fig. 23) – the last demonstrably a decoration applied
only after the introduction into J of Tutankhamun’s
large gilded shrines and the subsequent erection of the
Antechamber-Burial Chamber partition (Carter 028).
A second important difference noted by the GCI is
the complete absence from the north wall of those
snapped paint guide-lines employed in the laying-out
of the scenes of room J’s east, west and south walls;
on the north, the proportions of the design had been
fixed instead by means of simple incisions in the
plaster.62
Third, and most telling of all, is the Getty’s
discovery that the ancient palette of KV 62’s north
wall differed markedly from that we see today. Unlike
the east, west and south walls, whose scenes were
painted onto a yellow (over white) ground, on the
north wall the decoration had been executed directly
on white; as the Getty team was able to establish, its
present yellow ground (brighter than the yellow of the
east, west, and south walls, as the north wall’s greens
were also somewhat paler) represented a subsequent
adaptation achieved by the simple expedient of
painting around the existing figures63 (cf. Fig. 24).
With evidence for (1) a divergent paint/plaster
sequence, (2) a decoration laid out by a variant
method, and (3) the employment of a different
ground-colour, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion
that the Burial Chamber’s north wall had been
decorated independently of, and at an earlier date
than, its Tutankhamun-era, yellow-ground fellows –
this latter inference confirmed by the north’s
employment of an earlier, Amarna-style, 20-square
grid in contrast to the later, 18-square proportions
seen in the south and (seemingly) the east and west
walls also64 (Fig. 25).
Prior to chamber J’s adaptation to receive
Tutankhamun’s interment, therefore, the north wall
scene must have already been in existence, and (unless
there are earlier paintings now concealed beneath the
east, west and south walls) apparently as that room’s
sole decorated surface; and, with figures painted
directly on a white background, this scene presumably
had no association with any pre-Tutankhamun “House
of Gold,” or burial chamber. What, then, had been its
intended function? With the apparent continuation of
KV 62 beyond this point, a likely explanation may be
proposed: that the original role of this white-ground
decoration had been that of a “blind” – a decorated
barrier erected with the twin aims of applying ritual
protection to, and the concealment of, additional, preTutankhamun chamber(s) beyond.
Such corridor concealments were a subterfuge
resorted to frequently in the Valley of the Kings,65 and
indeed they occur too within other royal burials
elsewhere. 66 All New Kingdom and later instances
known to me present depictions of pharaoh in the
presence of a variety of gods – the same general
subject matter as KV 62’s north wall; 67 and their
favoured location was the far side of the tomb’s
“well”68 – to which, in the compressed plan of KV 62,
Carter considered room J at one stage to have
corresponded. 69 The sole significant difference
between the KV 62 north wall painting and those
corridor concealments of which we have any
knowledge in the Valley of the Kings is that all of the
65
The feature is first noted by Giovanni Battista Belzoni in
the tomb of Seti I (KV 17) in 1817: “The little aperture we
found to be an opening forced through a wall, that had
entirely closed the entrance, which was as large as the
corridor. The Egyptians had closely shut it up, plastered the
wall over, and painted it like the rest of the sides of the pit,
so that but for the aperture, it would have been impossible
to suppose, that there was any farther proceeding; and any
one would conclude, that the tomb ended with the pit …”
(Belzoni 1820, 233. For a later photograph, showing the
“blind” completely removed, see Hornung 1999b, pl. 56.
Cf. also the similar situation described in the tomb of
Horemheb (KV 57): “Above this well, … the walls on three
sides were covered with paintings, but the one opposite to
the entrance to this pit had been partly destroyed, showing
that the robbers … had not been deceived by the painted
wall, but had broken through the concealed entrance and
found their way to the funeral chambers, ruthlessly
destroying their beautiful and valuable contents” (Davis
1912, 2; cf. pls. XXVI and XXX, and Fig. 26 here).
66
For a similar and this time successful concealment at
Tanis, of the burials of Psusennes I and Amenemope, see
Montet 1951, pls. IV and XI.
67
Including Thutmose IV (KV 43), Amenhotep III (WV 22),
Horemheb (KV 57), and Seti I (KV 17).
68
Thomas 1966, 77; Hornung 1990, 208-210; Hornung and
Staehelin 2004, 61. The latter write: “The well shaft has
been interpreted as being a safeguard from tomb robbers as
well as a means for collecting rainwater that has seeped in;
but it also has a religious meaning, in the sense of being the
direct connection to the underworld and the cave of the god
Sokar. In later tombs its back was walled up and, like the
other walls, decorated with scenes of deities, making it look
like the end of the tomb complex; its decoration made it a
place where the deceased pharaoh entered the world of the
gods.” See further Abitz 1979.
69
Carter (and Mace) 1923-1933, III, v.
date from chamber J’s later, Tutankhamun phase (see
above).
62
Wong et al. 2012, S327.
63
Ibid.
64
Robins 1984; only on the north and south walls is the
position of the knee – from which the proportions are
determined (the soles of the feet to the top of the knee
representing one third of the figure’s height to the chin in
the case of a 20-square proportional grid, and one third of
the figure’s height to the hairline in the case of the 18-square
grid) – clearly visible. As Robins observes (28), though fails
to develop, “It is extraordinary to find the two canons used
side by side on the same monument”. See also Robins 2007.
9
observed in all of the relevant north wall figures,73 but
for this there is a reason. Following the repainting in
yellow of the north wall’s white background, clearly
there had been a need for the profiles to be neatened
up, and this seems in places to have been carried out
somewhat carelessly. Where the need for such reoutlining had been minimal, however – as, for
example, in the case of the beard-wearing gods – the
jawline and chin are preserved as originally drafted,
and their original forms readily discerned (Fig. 27).
But it is in the facial structure of the second,
ministering pharaoh in the Opening of the Mouth
ceremony that we find final confirmation of the
Nefertiti attribution. The sem-priest’s distinctive
double under-chin is a feature not present in any
image currently recognizable as Ay, for whom this KV
62 figure is now labelled;74 unless added in error at the
time of the north wall background’s repainting and the
figure’s reassignment to Ay, it too must be a carryover from the scene’s original, white-ground
employment as a corridor “blind” erected at the time
of Nefertiti’s funeral. The chin is very clearly that of
an Amarna child, 75 and in the present context that
child is surely Tutankhamun (Fig. 28) – to whom, as
Nefertiti’s successor, fell the responsibility of ensuring
that his predecessor was accorded a full, Osirian
burial. As the face of KV 62’s pharaonic sem-priest
now suggests, it was a responsibility the young
successor carried out to the letter, establishing for
eternity not merely his piety but the very legitimacy of
his accession (Fig. 29).
latter had been breached in distant antiquity, with the
burials they sought to protect completely plundered
(Fig. 26).70 It seems that in KV 62 we may be faced,
for the very first time, with a Valley of the Kings
corridor “blind” which has survived structurally intact.
So whose burial had this north wall partition been
erected to hide and protect? Most of the evidence is
already to hand. From its right-turning, L-shaped plan
we are able to discern that KV 62 had originally been
quarried for a queen; and that this was a queen upon
whom were subsequently bestowed the trappings of
kingship is indicated both by the regal iconography of
the north wall’s original, white-ground scene, and by
the corridor the blocking beneath this painting appears
to conceal – a corridor made sufficiently large to
permit the passage of enormous, pharaonic-style
shrine panels. The proportions employed in the layout
of this north wall’s concealing scene, moreover, are
those generated by a 20-square, Amarna-style grid.
On these criteria there would seem to be but one
viable candidate: Nefertiti as sole ruling king – i.e. as
Smenkhkare.
What is more, this mooted ownership may
seemingly be demonstrated. Although the original,
identifying inscriptions of the north wall decoration
are now completely covered by later yellow overpaint, the still-exposed figures of this original scene
continue to display a good deal of attributable detail.
In the case of the principal participant – those images
of the pharaoh currently labelled as Tutankhamun (and
of the divinities who carry this same royal face) – the
first and most revealing feature to be observed is an
obvious line extending downwards on either side of
the mouth. This so-called “oromental groove” 71 is
regularly encountered as a defining feature of
Nefertiti’s later sculptural representations, 72 and it
appears in combination with other features assignable
to this same woman including a somewhat “scooped”
brow and nose and a straight jawline with gently
rounded chin. Not all of these features may now be
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence presented in this paper points
cumulatively and compellingly towards the existence
of a significantly larger ground plan for KV 62 than has
previously been acknowledged. At least two new
elements are here proposed: (1) a further storage
room on the west of the Burial Chamber, seemingly
contemporary with the Annexe and the burial of
70
As Hornung 1990, 208, dramatically observes, “All
offerings and royal treasures lay beyond this wall.”
71
Taylor 2001, 265, fig. 8.11.
72
Even on her famous painted limestone bust in Berlin,
though here it was rendered deliberately less obvious by the
application of a secondary layer of plaster. Cf. Hupperts et
al. 2009. The fact that the figure of the king wearing the
khat-headdress on the Tutankhamun-era south wall of the
KV 62 Burial Chamber displays the same oromental groove
– which is not a standard facial characteristic of this king –
may be a consequence of the ancient artists’ desire to impose
a degree of consistency on the finished whole. This
inclination is seen elsewhere in these scenes, both earlier and
later, in the universal employment of the so-called “Amarna
navel” – and, of course, in the desire to match the colouring
of the walls.
73
Interestingly, the faces of the goddesses on the north and
south walls are quite different, both from those of the
pharaoh and Osiris images and from each other – suggesting
that the face of Nut on the earlier north may, with its low
nose, horizontal chin-line, and deeper chin (encountered
also on Tutankhamun’s shrines III and IV – e.g. Piankoff
1951, pls. X, XII, XX), be intended as an image of
Meritaten, (ritualistic) great royal wife of
Neferneferuaten/Smenkhkare. The features of the goddess
Isis in the later, south wall decoration would accordingly
have been influenced by those of Tutankhamun’s own
consort, Ankhesenamun.
74
See Reeves in press b.
75
Davies 1921, pl. I.
10
argued, the fact that Nefertiti failed to employ this
semi-pharaonic equipment can point to only one thing
– that in the end, as sole ruler, she had been entitled
to the more elaborate funerary paraphernalia of a fully
fledged king. Although it cannot yet be proven, it is
my guess that Nefertiti will have inherited, adapted,
and employed the full, formal burial equipment
originally produced for Akhenaten. Certainly it is
improbable that there was time for Smenkhkare
herself to have prepared from scratch an entirely new
funerary assemblage.
At the time of Nefertiti’s burial within KV 62 there
had surely been no intention that Tutankhamun would
in due course occupy this same tomb. That thought
would not occur until the king’s early and unexpected
death a decade later. With no tomb yet dug for
pharaoh’s sole use, KV 62 was reopened and accessed
up to and including chamber J. This restricted space
was then physically enlarged to receive a second
burial, with room J – the notional “well” of Nefertiti’s
tomb – reconfigured to become Tutankhamun’s Burial
Chamber, or “House of Gold.”
This transformation was achieved by applying
yellow paint around the figures of the room’s whiteground north wall, and by adding to this new
background fresh columns of text reassigning
Nefertiti’s images to their new owner, Tutankhamun,
and that of the original officiating sem-priest,
Tutankhamun, to Ay. At the same time, this onceindependent north wall decoration was supplemented
by three entirely new scenes executed directly on
yellow, with the painting on the west effectively
concealing from view the entrance to one of
Tutankhamun’s freshly quarried and stocked orbital
chambers. With its entrance cut to match that of the
Annexe, this still-hidden room had probably been
employed to store further Tutankhamun burial
equipment; not impossibly, however, it may have
been used to cache those further members of the
Amarna royal family whose mummies were now
seeking a new, Theban home. Finally, amuletic
recesses were cut into each of the Burial Chamber’s
four walls, irregularly but deliberately positioned so as
to penetrate only the living rock and avoid
compromising the chamber’s known partitions and
closures.
Possibly, by the time Tutankhamun’s burial came
to be robbed shortly after the funeral, Nefertiti’s
presence behind the north wall “blind” was already
forgotten; perhaps, and more likely, the robbers
simply had insufficient time to investigate, choosing to
focus instead on those abundant riches readily to hand.
Three and a half thousand years later Howard Carter
had the time, but he lacked the technology to see
beneath the tomb’s painted walls. Accepting the oddly
positioned rock-cut niches as evidence that the Burial
Tutankhamun; and (2), to the north, an earlier
corridor of Antechamber width which continues
deeper into the gebel (see Frontispiece).
The likely developments in the tomb’s design and
use may now be charted (Fig. 30). The initial form of
KV 62 is established as a narrow, L-shaped corridortomb, with the distinctive turn to the right (rather
than to the kingly left) identifying its primary owner as
a queen. Two features combine to mark out this
woman as a queen who ultimately achieved full regal
status. These are: (1) the pharaonic character of the
Burial Chamber’s pre-Tutankhamun north wall scene;
and (2) the corridor-continuation this decoration
appears to conceal, cut at the same enlarged,
Antechamber width and presumably to permit the
ingress of massive, pharaonic-style shrine panels. Only
one female royal of the late Eighteenth Dynasty is
known to have received such honours, and that is
Nefertiti. It is not by chance, therefore, that
Nefertiti’s image may be discerned in this north wall’s
decoration – which must have been erected as a
“blind” following her interment here as pharaoh, to
conceal the presence of a corridor-continuation and
burial beyond.
Nefertiti had begun her career as great royal wife
to Akhenaten, and was promoted as co-regent in or
after his sixteenth regnal year, adopting an elaborated
version of her queenly name contained within a pair of
cartouches:
Ankhkheperure
(+
epithet)
Neferneferuaten (+ epithet). As co-regent, Nefertiti’s
iconography was enhanced to incorporate emblems of
a distinctly royal character, including the nemesheaddress – as seen in her burial equipment later
appropriated by Tutankhamun.
Following Akhenaten’s death, the junior co-regent
will have assumed formal control of Egypt as a matter
of course. As full pharaoh her prenomen was
modified by removing those earlier epithets declaring
her previous dependence on Akhenaten; her nomen
was entirely new – “Smenkhkare-djeserkheperu”.
After a brief, independent reign of perhaps no more
than a few months – during which she will have issued
her fateful appeal to Suppiluliuma I, king of the
Hittites, to send a son to rule Egypt by her side –
Nefertiti disappears from view, presumably having
died or been killed. Responsibility for the subsequent
funeral fell to her immediate successor, Tutankhamun
– the Amarna prince whose distinctive double underchin is recognizable still in the face of the king shown
within KV 62 officiating at Nefertiti’s Opening of the
Mouth ceremony.
The proposal here put forward – that KV 62 had
been both initiated and employed for the burial of
Nefertiti – ties in with evidence already noted for
Tutankhamun’s re-use of the larger part of this same
woman’s co-regent-status burial furniture. As I have
11
Chamber’s walls were completely solid, he brought
his search to a close – wholly unaware that a more
significant find by far may have been lying but inches
from his grasp.
Nicholas Reeves
July 23, 2015
12
REFERENCES
Abitz, Friedrich
1979
Die religiöse Bedeutung der sogennanten
Grabräuberschächte in den ägyptischen
Königsgräbern der 18. und 19. Dynastie
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz)
Carter, Howard and Alan H. Gardiner
1917
“The Tomb of Ramesses IV and the Turin
Plan of a Royal Tomb,” Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 4, 130-158
Carter, Howard (and Arthur C. Mace)
1923-1933
The Tomb of Tut.ankh.Amen, I-III (London:
Cassell and Company)
Allen, James P.
2009
“The Amarna Succession,” in Brand, Peter J.
and Louise Cooper, eds., Causing his Name to
Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History
in Memory of William J. Murnane, 9-20
Černý, Jaroslav
1973
The Valley of the Kings. Fragments d’un
manuscript inachevé (Cairo: Institut français
d’Archéologie orientale)
Arnold, Dorothea, ed.
2010
Tutankhamun’s Funeral (New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Davies, Norman de Garis
1905
The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part II. The
Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II (London:
Egypt Exploration Fund)
1921
“Mural Paintings in the City of Akhetaten,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 7, 1-7
Beinlich, Horst and Mohamed Saleh
1989
Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem
Grab des Tutanchamun (Oxford: Griffith
Institute)
Bell, Martha R.
1990
“Notes on the Exterior Construction Signs
from Tutankhamun’s Shrines,” Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 76, 107-124
Davis, Theodore M.
1912
The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamanou
(London: Constable and Company Ltd)
Belzoni, Giovanni Battista
1820
Narrative of the Operations and Recent
Discoveries in Egypt and Nubia (London: John
Murray)
Dodson, Aidan
2009
Amarna Sunset. Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Ay,
Horemheb, and the Egyptian CounterReformation (Cairo: American University in
Cairo Press)
Carter, Howard
1916
“Report on the Tomb of Zeser-Ka-Ra
Amenhetep I, Discovered by the Earl of
Carnarvon in 1914,” Journal of Egyptian
1917
“A Tomb Prepared for Queen Hatshepsuit
and Other Recent Discoveries at Thebes,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4, 107-118
Eaton-Krauss, Marianne
1993
The sarcophagus in the tomb of Tutankhamun
(Oxford: Griffith Institute)
1994
“Tutankhamun's sarcophagus: an addition
and two corrections,” Journal of Egyptian
1998
“The sarcophagus in the tomb of Tutankhamun: a
clarification,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
84, 210-212
13
2008
2009-2010
“The Burial of Tutankhamen, Part One,”
Kmt 20/4 (winter), 34-47
Hayes, William C.
1935
Royal Sarcophagi of the XVIIIth Dynasty
(Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Engelbach, Reginald
1940
“Material for a Revision of the History of the
Heresy Period of the XVIIIth Dynasty,”
Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte 40,
133-165
Helck, Wolfgang
1984
Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, IV.
Urkunden der 18. Dymastie (Berlin: AkademieVerlag)
Ertman, Earl M.
2009
“A Unique ‘Bed’ with Lion-headed
Terminals: A KV 63 Report,” Kmt 20/2
(summer), 44-47
Hornung, Erik
1963
Das Amduat. Die Schrift des verborgenen Raumes
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz)
1990
The Valley of the Kings, Horizon of Eternity
(New York: Timken Publishers)
1999a The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife
(Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press)
1999b Das Grab Sethos’ I (second edition,
Düsseldorf and Zürich: Artemis and
Winkler Verlag)
2006
“New Kingdom,” in Ancient Egyptian
Chronology, Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and
David A. Warburton (eds.) (Leiden: Brill,
2006), 197-218
Factum Arte
2012
The Authorized Facsimile of the Burial Chamber
of Tutankhamun, with Sarcophagus, Sarcophagus
Lid and the Missing Fragment from the South
Wall (Madrid: Factum Arte)
von Falck, Martin
2012
“Zwischen Echnaton und Tutanchamun.
Eine neue nachgezeichnete Skizze,” Sokar
25/2, 86-97
[Forbes, Dennis]
2013
“Exact Facsimile of the Burial Chamber of
KV 62 Gifted to Egypt,” Kmt 24/1 (spring),
50-63
Hornung, Erik and Elisabeth Staehelin
2004
“The Valley of the Kings in the 18th
Dynasty,” in André Wiese and Andreas
Brodbeck, eds., Tutankhamun, the Golden
Beyond. Tomb Treasures from the Valley of the
Kings (Basel: Antikenmuseum Basel und
Sammlung Ludwig), 57-82
Gabolde, Marc
1998
D’Akhenaten à Toutânkhamon (Lyon: Institut
d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité)
2009
“Under a deep blue starry sky,” in Brand,
Peter J. and Louise Cooper, eds., Causing his
Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and
History in Memory of William J. Murnane, 109120
Hupperts, Alexander, Dietrich Wildung, Barry J.
Kemp, Tanja Nentwig, Patrick Asbach, Franz
Maximilian Rasche, and Bernd Hamm
2009
“Nondestructive Insights into Composition
of the Sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti
with CT,” Radiology 251/1 (April), 233-240
Gardiner, Alan Henderson
1928
“The Graffito from the Tomb of Pere,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14, 10-11, pls.
V-VI
Johnson, George B.
1993-1994
“KV 62: Its Architecture and Decoration,”
Kmt 4/4 (winter), 38-47
Hammond, Norman
2014
[Report on Reeves 2014], The Times
(London), May 17
Kondo, Jiro
1995
“The Re-clearance of Tombs WV 22 and
WV A in the Western Valley of the Kings,”
in Richard H. Wilkinson, ed., Valley of the
Sun Kings. New Explorations in the Tombs of the
Pharaohs (Tucson: University of Arizona),
25-33
Harris, John R.
1992
“Akhenaten and Nefernefruaten in the tomb
of Tutaankhamūn,” in Carl Nicholas Reeves,
ed., After Tutaankhamūn. Research and
Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes
(London: KPI), 55-72
14
“Apropos Nefertiti (2): Smenkhkara
Resartus,” Papyrus 28/2, 1-7
Loeben, Christian E.
1986
“Eine Bestattung der großen königlichen
Gemahlin Nofretete in Amarna,” Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 42, 99-107
1999
“Une inhumation de la grande épouse royal
Néfertiti à Amarna?” Égypte Afrique et Orient
13, 25-30
2001b
2002a
Miller, Jared L.
2007
“Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of
Nibhururiya in the Light of a Newly
Reconstructed Hittite Text,” Altorientalische
Forschungen 34/2, 252-293
2002b
2003
Montet, Pierre
1951
Les constructions et le tombeau de Psousennès à
Tanis (Paris: CNRS)
2011
Murray, Helen and Mary Nuttall, eds.
1963
A Handlist to Howard Carter’s Catalogue of
Objects in the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun (Oxford:
Griffith Institute)
Piankoff, Alexandre
1951
Les chapelles de Tutankhamon, I-II (Cairo:
Institut francais d’archéologie orientale)
2014
Reeves, (Carl) Nicholas
1978
“Nefertiti as Hmt nsw aAt,” Göttinger Miszellen
1981a “A Re-appraisal of Tomb 55 in the Valley of
the Kings,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 67,
48-55
1981b “A State Chariot from the Tomb of Ay?”
Göttinger Miszellen 46, 11-19
1982a “The Discovery and Clearance of KV 58,”
Göttinger Miszellen 53, 33-45
1982b “Akhenaten After All?” Göttinger Miszellen
54, 61-71
1990a Valley of the Kings. The Decline of a Royal
Necropolis (London: KPI)
1990b The Complete Tutankhamun (London and New
York: Thames and Hudson)
1990c “The Archaeological Analysis of KV55 19071990,” in Theodore M. Davis, The Tomb of
Queen Tîyi (2nd ed., San Francisco: Kmt
Communications), iv-xiv
2001a Akhenaten. Egypt’s False Prophet (London and
New York: Thames and Hudson)
in press a
in press b
“Re-excavating the ‘Gold Tomb,’” lecture
delivered at the UCL Bloomsbury Theatre,
London, at the Day School Valley of the
Kings: The Amarna Royal Tombs Project 19982001, September 29. Text online at
http://www.nicholasreeves.com/item.aspx
?category=Archaeology&id=257 (accessed
July 16, 2015)
“ARTP: In Search of Akhenaten’s Missing
Women,” Newsletter of the Valley of the Kings
Foundation 1 (summer), 5
“Huts and Graffiti,” Newsletter of the Valley of
the Kings Foundation 1 (summer), 9
“On Some Queens’ Tombs of the Eighteenth
Dynasty,” in Nigel Strudwick and John H.
Taylor, eds., The Theban Necropolis, Past,
Present and Future (London: British Museum
Press), 69-73
“Recent Research in Egyptian Art. Behind
the Mask of Tutankhamun,” lecture
delivered at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, April 3. Video online at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxN
1hm1TmJ0 (accessed July 16, 2015)
“The Gold Throne from Tutankhamun’s
Tomb,” 65th Annual Meeting of the American
Research Center in Egypt, Abstracts (San
Antonio), 71
“Tutankhamun’s Mask Reconsidered,” in
Adela Oppenheim and Ogden Goelet, eds.,
The Art and Culture of Ancient Egypt. Studies in
Honor of Dorothea Arnold (Bulletin of the
Egyptological Seminar [New York], 19)
“The Coffin of Ramesses II,” in Proceedings of
the First Vatican Coffin Conference, 19-22 June
2013 (Rome: Vatican Museum)
Reeves, (Carl) Nicholas and Richard H. Wilkinson
1996
The Complete Valley of the Kings (London and
New York: Thames and Hudson)
Revez, Jean
2010
“Looking at History through the Prism of
Mythology: Can the Osirian Myth Shed any
Light on Ancient Egyptian Royal Succession
Patterns?” in Journal of Egyptian History 3, 4771
Robins, Gay
1983a “Anomalous Proportions in the Tomb of
Haremhab (KV 57),” Göttinger Miszellen 65,
91-96
15
1983b
1984
2007
“The Canon of Proportions in the Tomb of
Ramesses I (KV 16),” Göttinger Miszellen 68,
85-90
“The Proportions of Figures in the
Decoration of the Tombs of Tutankhamun
(KV 62) and Ay (KV 23),” Göttinger Miszellen
72, 27-32
Wong, Lori, Stephen Rickerby, Alan Phenix, Amarilli
Rava, and Rasha Kamel
2012
“Examination of the Wall Paintings in
Tutankhamen’s Tomb. Inconsistencies in
Original Technology,” in The International
Institute for Conservation of Historic and
Artistic Works, The Decorative: Conservation
and the Applied Arts. 2012 IIC Congress, Vienna
(London: International Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic
Works), S322-S330
“The Decorative Program in the Tomb of
Tutankhamun,” in Zahi H. Hawass and Janet
E. Richards, eds., The Archaeology and Art of
Ancient Egypt. Essays in Honor of David B.
O'Connor, II (Cairo: Conseil Suprême des
Antiquités de l'Egypte), 321-342
Wong, Lori, ed.
2013
The Conservation and Management of the Tomb
of Tutankhamen (KV 62). A Project Bibliography
(Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute)
Steindorff, Georg
1938
“Die Grabkammer des Tutanchamun,”
Annales du Services des Antiquités de l’Égypte 38,
641-667
Yoshimura, Sakuji and Jiro Kondo, eds.
2004
Conservation of the Wall Paintings in the Royal
Tomb of Amenophis III. First and Second Phase
Report (Paris and Tokyo: UNESCO and
Institute of Egyptology, Waseda University)
Taylor, Karen T.
2001
Forensic Art and Illustration (Boca Raton: CRC
Press)
el Zeini and Dees 2007
Omm Sety’s Egypt (Pittsburgh: St Lynn’s
Press)
Thomas, Elizabeth
1966
The Royal Necropoleis of Thebes (Princeton:
Elizabeth Thomas)
Van der Perre, Athena
2014
“The Year 16 Graffito of Akhenaten in Dayr
Abū Hinnis. A Contribution to the Study of
the Later Years of Nefertiti,” Journal of
Egyptian History 7, 67-108
Weeks, Kent R.
2003
Atlas of the Valley of the Kings. Study Edition
(Cairo: American University in Cairo Press)
2009
The Tomb of Tutankhamen: A Survey of its Art,
Architecture, and Changing Condition (Los
Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute).
Unpublished report; not seen
Winlock, Herbert E.
1941
Materials Used at the Embalming of King Tutaankh-Amūn (New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art)
16
!
!
!
!
Fig. 1. Conspectus of Burial Chamber (J) walls, KV 62, from left to right: south (incomplete), west, north, east. Above: painted decoration. Below: surface relief
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, copyright © FactumArte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
!
!
!
!
!
Fig. 2. Plan of the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV 62) as at present known
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with emendations,
!
!
Fig. 3. KV 62 and other tombs and deposits with Amarna associations in the central Valley of the Kings
(location of KV 63 approximate only)
!
Fig. 4. Howard Carter’s measured plan of the KV 62 Burial Chamber (J), showing the position of Tutankhamun’s
sarcophagus as found, wall niches, and fault running diagonally across ceiling
(Carter MSS, GI I.G.43, copyright © Griffith Institute, Oxford)
Fig. 5. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: west wall, painted decoration
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 6. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: west wall, surface relief (positive), showing numbered features
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, with additions, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 7. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: west wall, surface relief (negative), showing numbered features
Fig. 8. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: west wall, surface relief (positive), showing numbered features and traces of sealed doorway in red
Fig. 9. Vertical faulting above door lintels in (left) KV 62 (Tutankhamun – entrance to the Treasury, Ja) and (right) WV 22 (Amenhotep III – entrance to side room Jbb)
(Left: http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt.
Right: after Yoshimura and Kondo 2004, 92, fig. 11, copyright © Institute of Egyptology, Waseda University/UNESCO)
Fig. 10. Antechamber (I), KV 62: west wall, showing doorway into the Annexe (Ia)
(Carter MSS, Burton photograph p0034a, copyright © Griffith Institute, Oxford)
Fig. 11. Antechamber (I) and Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: section showing west wall and relative sizes of the doorway
into the Annexe (Ia) and putative doorway into store room(?) (Jx)
(Original section Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, copyright © Theban
Mapping Project, with superimposed surface scan, right, http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, with
additions, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 12. (Left) Carter’s sketch-analysis of the KV 62 ground plan: (1) as is; (2) with the chambers swung around en bloc 90 degrees counter-clockwise to correspond
to the burial apartments of a typical Eighteenth Dynasty royal tomb (seen right: Amenhotep II, KV 35)
(Left: Reeves 1990b, 70, based on an original sketch by Carter, Carter MSS, with additions, copyright © Griffith Institute, Oxford). Right: Weeks 2003, sheet 50/70 /
http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with additions, copyright © Theban Mapping Project)
Fig. 13. KV 62, showing (in yellow) position of proposed new store room (Jx) behind the decorated west wall of the
Burial Chamber (J).
Fig. 14. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: north wall, painted decoration
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 15. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: north wall, surface relief (positive), showing numbered features
Fig. 16. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: north wall, surface relief (positive), showing numbered features
Fig. 17. Above: Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: north wall, surface relief (positive), showing diagonal separation in
plastered surface. Below: Identical type of fissure as seen in a modern partition wall
(Above: http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, detail, with additions, copyright © Factum
Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt, detail. Below: after
http://inspectapedia.com/vision/SinkingHouse109DJFs.jpg, manipulated, with additions, copyright ©
InspectAPedia.com 2010)
Fig. 18. Plan of KV 62, showing relief feature 2 on the surface of the Burial Chamber’s north wall lining up precisely
with the west wall of the Antechamber
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with emendations and additions,
Fig. 19. KV 62, highlighting (in red) the extension to the west of the Burial Chamber (J) along line 2
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com, with additions,
Fig. 20. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: north wall, surface relief (positive), showing numbered features, partition wall
traces and internal door-frame, in red
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, with additions, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for
Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 21. Antechamber (I), KV 62: north wall partition and its internal sealed doorway (shown partially dismantled)
giving access to the Burial Chamber (J)
(Carter MSS, Burton photo p0293, copyright © Griffith Institute, Oxford)
Fig. 22. The right-turning, L-shaped core of KV 62 (left) compared with the right-turning, L-shaped plan of WA D prepared for Hatshepsut
as principal consort of Thutmose II
(Left: Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with emendations and additions, copyright © Theban Mapping Project.
Right: original plan after Carter 1917, Pl. XXI, with emendations and additions, copyright © Egypt Exploration Society)
Fig. 23. Stratigraphy of the Burial Chamber (J) walls, KV 62, as established by the Getty Conservation Institute, from the uppermost painted
surface through to the limestone support
(After Wong et al. 2012, S326, Fig. 5, copyright © Getty Conservation Institute)
Fig. 24. Plan of KV 62, showing the two phases (I – white ground; II – yellow ground) of the Burial Chamber (J) decoration
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, copyright © Theban Mapping Project, with emendations and superimposed images from
http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 25. The two proportional scales encountered in the decoration of the Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: (left) south wall
– post-Amarna 18-square grid (associated with Phase II); (right) north wall – Amarna 20-square grid (associated with
Phase I)
(After Reeves 1990b, 74, based upon Robins 1984, Figs. 1 and 2, copyright © Gay Robins)
Fig. 26. KV 57 (Horemheb): Remains of decorated scene which originally concealed access to the tomb
beyond the “well” (E)
(Photo Francis Dzikowski, http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tombimages_871_200.html, no.
16139, copyright © Theban Mapping Project)
Fig. 27. The face of the Osirid king on the north wall of the Burial Chamber (J), KV 62, compared with the face of the
so-called “aged Nefertiti” to illustrate shared lines of brow and nose, straight jawline, small, rounded chin, and deep
“oromental groove”
(Left: http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, detail, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for
Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt. Right: Berlin 21263, detail, reversed, copyright © Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin)
Fig. 28. The face of the ministering sem-priest (“Ay”) on the north wall of the Burial Chamber (J), KV 62, showing the
same plumpness and under-grooved chin as an early image of the young Tutankhamun from KV 62
(Left: http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, detail, copyright © Factum Arte/Ministry of State for
Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt. Right: Carter MSS, no. 008, Burton photograph p1880, detail, reversed, copyright ©
Griffith Institute, Oxford)
Fig. 29. Burial Chamber (J), KV 62: reconstruction of north wall scene on its original white background (Phase I),
showing original identifications
(http://www.highres.factum-arte.org/Tutankhamun/, with emendations and additions, copyright
© Factum Arte/Ministry of State for Antiquities and Heritage, Egypt)
Fig. 30. Suggested development of KV 62, from its inception as the tomb for a queen to the ultimate occupation of its
outermost chambers by Tutankhamun
(Weeks 2003, sheet 69/70 / http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/, with emendations and additions,

the burial of nefertiti?

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

NME - Cranberries World

Tsunami waves extensively resurfaced the shorelines of an early

v32n2p111

Bouvetøya, South Atlantic Ocean

Where do the They Rest_1995

catalogo de productos 2010